Report of Working Group II: Research and Regional Cooperation

61. Working Group II comprised the following members.

62. In discussing the subject the group recommended the following.

• Research needs should be driven by the management issues and questions identified within the national and regional fishery management plans. Most countries have an approved or draft fishery management plan for their respective fisheries.

• Fisheries administrations were very often unable to collect all the necessary data and information required for management decision-making due to inadequate staffing and funds. The group recommended that partnerships be developed with the fishing industry, universities and other research institutions to overcome these constraints. Universities can assist with research on fish biology, maturity, migration and ecosystem modelling.

• Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group should be continued and the studies already conducted by the group should be sustained and improved.

• Two types of data collection programmes should be implemented in the countries, onshore (random sampling at landing sites and logbooks) and observer programmes.

63. The group suggested the following regarding data collection and information:

• The networking of all institutions and countries involved in fisheries research in the subregion.

• The current mechanisms for data collection and analysis, information sharing and dissemination should be maintained and supported.

• The results of analyses should be provided to government and industry in a timely manner and based on the current data available.

• The analysis of the impact of agriculture and land based activities on fisheries should be conducted.

• The implementation of Integrated Coastal Fisheries Management (ICFM).

• The continuity of data gathering and analyses (time series). In this regard the responsibilities of researchers should be prioritised. It was pointed out that researchers often have other responsibilities.

• The networking among countries of the region should be promoted to facilitate information sharing and exchange.

• The assessment of the feasibility of utilising new technologies such as, GIS (Global Information System) and VMS (Vessel Monitoring System) systems, in order to facilitate data collection should be conducted. Training may be necessary in the use of the technology.

• The collection and storage of data by countries of the subregion should be compatible in order to facilitate joint analyses, where applicable.

64. With respect to closed seasons for Penaeid shrimp species the group suggested that the following data and information were required for analysis before determinations could be made.

• maturity data, size and distribution by species and age structure;

• migration patterns of the species;

• recruitment patterns and nursery areas (specific for shrimp and fish); and

• social and economic data to assist in determining impacts of closed seasons and mitigation measures.

65. The group noted that observer programmes were already established in some countries. It stressed the need for continuity of observer programmes and to make improvements where necessary. The following observations were highlighted by the group:

• The industry plays an integral role in the success of any data collection programme, particularly the observer programme. In some countries the industry was accommodating observers onboard their vessels and providing victuals in some cases. Fisheries administrations should therefore be obligated to keep the industry and other interested parties periodically informed of the data requirements and results of analyses. This can be achieved through the preparation of reports, updates and consultation meetings.

• It was necessary to periodically review data collected and data collection systems to be able to determine whether additional data parameters were to be collected or what changes should be made to improve the efficiency.

• The observer programme should also be evaluated periodically to determine if the programme was cost effective, if it provided credible data, and to identify the successes and failures, and the lessons learnt.

• The industry should play an integral role in the evaluation of the observer programme.

• In order to build a strong relationship between the industry and the fisheries administrations regular informal workshops should be held to discuss the results of the data collection programme and related matters. This should foster industry confidence in the results of the data collection programme.

• Countries with observer programmes already in place should assist in establishing programmes in countries where they do not exist.

• The observer programme should be used to corroborate data obtained from onshore and other data collection programmes.

• The debriefing of observers should be conducted in a timely manner after their return to shore.

• The need to ensure sustainability of the observer programme and quality of data collected was emphasized. This can be accomplished through the following processes:

  - Establishment of a collaborative mechanism, comprising the fisheries department, coast guard and fishing industry, to oversee the observer programme.

  - Provision of incentives for observers to remain offshore. Observers have become less committed to the job and the quality of data had deteriorated (due to inadequate salaries). Additional sources of funds apart from the government, such as the fishing industry, international donor agencies, should be identified for supporting the observer programme.

  - Provision of timely reports on the value and outputs of the observer programme to other government departments, such as finance and planning departments, was necessary to secure adequate funds for fisheries data collection programmes.

  - Introduction of service fees, such as a licensing regime that bring in revenue, which can be used to run research programmes, where such service fees do not exist.

  - Establishment of a research fund with contributions from the fishing industry.